Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-14, 16-19 are pending.
Claim 15 is canceled.
Claims 1, 6, 8, 10, 13, 14, and 17 are currently amended.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-4, 9 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brunner (US 20180161975) in view of Neeley (US 20150084291), Robinson (US 7374064), and Escobar (US 20080245794).
Regarding claim 1, Brunner discloses A tool storage assembly comprising: a dolly assembly (See annotated fig. below) connected to a stack assembly (Fig. 6); the stack assembly having an upper storage container (See annotated fig. below) stacked atop a lower storage container (See annotated fig. below), , wherein the lower storage container is accessible without removal of the upper storage container from the stack assembly (fig. 6G ).
With regards to the limitation “the lower storage container having a lower lid hingedly connected to a lower compartment” Brunner appears to disclose an hinge that connects the storage container to the lid, however, in the event, Brunner does not disclose this limitation; Neeley is relevant to this issue and discloses a container (80) having a lid (81) hingedly (83) connected to a lower compartment.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Brunner to incorporate a hinge to connect the lid and the container as taught by Neeley as this would allow for the lid to be secured to the body and minimizing risk of losing the lid.
However, Brunner does not disclose, a stabilizer assembly having at least one anchor connected to a lower edge of the lower compartment, and wherein the at least one anchor extends perpendicularly away from the stack assembly .
Robinson discloses, a stabilizer assembly having at least one anchor (17, 20) connected to a lower edge of a compartment (Fig. 1), wherein the at least one anchor extends perpendicularly away from body.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Brunner to incorporate a stabilizer assembly having at least one anchor connected to a lower edge of the lower compartment, wherein the at least one anchor extends perpendicularly away from body as taught by Robinson for the purpose of improving stabilization during transportation and while using the container.
However, Brunner as modified does not disclose, the anchor is on a side opposite where the lower compartment is hingedly connected to the lower lid.
Escobar discloses a container comprising an anchor (18) that is on a side opposite where the compartment is hingedly (Fig. 3) connected to the lower lid.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Brunner to have the anchor on a side opposite where the compartment is hingedly connected to the lower lid as it not only allows for improved balance by preventing tipping over but also for ease of reachability by a user.
The limitation “the at least one anchor is configured to be stepped on to provide a counterweight to an offset created by a displacement of the upper storage container when the lower storage container is accessed.” is considered to be intended use. Examiner asserts that the recitation of intended use or purpose of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use or fulfilling said purpose, then it meets the claim. Herein, a user is capable of stepping on the structure 17 of Robinson when its incorporated into Brunner as above to provide a counterweight to an offset created by a displacement of the upper storage container when the lower storage container is accessed.
PNG
media_image1.png
340
701
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Brunner disclose, the at least one anchor is hingedly connected to the lower storage container (Fig. 1-2; Col. 3; lines 41-52).
Regarding claim 3, Brunner as modified discloses, the counterweight received on the at least one anchor (17, fig. 1; Robinson). The limitation “the counterweight offsets the displacement of the upper storage container when the lower storage container is open with the upper storage container positioned atop of the lower storage container.” is considered to be intended use. Examiner asserts that the recitation of intended use or purpose of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use or fulfilling said purpose, then it meets the claim. Herein the padel 17 of Robinson is capable of performing the limitation as claimed.
Regarding claim 4, Brunner as modified discloses, an interlock assembly is configured to secure the stack assembly together (projection 56 engages with 36.Para 203; fig. 1-6; 6g shows the lid of a bottom container is securely attached to the bottom of an adjacent upper container).
Regarding claim 9, Brunner discloses, the lower storage container having a lower compartment (See annotated fig. below) and a lower lid (See annotated fig. below), the dolly assembly having a handle (118) connected to the rear of the stack assembly (Fig. 6).
The limitation “the lower lid is configured to open from a front side of the stack assembly towards a rear side of the stack assembly” is considered to be intended use. Examiner asserts that the recitation of intended use or purpose of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use or fulfilling said purpose, then it meets the claim. Herein, the lower container lid is capable of from a first side of the stack assembly towards a second side of the stack assembly similar to shown in fig. 6g.
PNG
media_image2.png
445
495
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 10, Brunner as modified discloses, the at least one anchor includes a front anchor connected to the lower edge of a front side of the stack assembly (17, 20 of Robinson). (Escobar explicitly disclose the use an anchor on a side opposite where the compartment is hingedly (Fig. 3) Herein, since the hinge is on the rear side of the container, the anchor of Robinson is expected to be on the front i.e. on the opposite side of the hinge.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brunner- Neeley- Robinson- Escobar as applied to claim 1 in view of Coon (US 20100072215).
Regarding claim 5, Brunner as modified does not disclose, an exterior storage system configured to store materials to an exterior of the stack assembly.
Coon discloses, a storage container (Fig. 1) comprising an exterior storage system (11) for storing extra material .
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Brunner to incorporate an exterior storage system as taught by Coon for the purpose of extra storage that allows for easy access to articles.
The limitation “to store materials to an exterior of the stack assembly” is considered to be intended use. Examiner asserts that the recitation of intended use or purpose of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use or fulfilling said purpose, then it meets the claim.
Claim(s) 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brunner- Neeley- Robinson- Escobar as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Galante (US 20140077467).
Regarding claim 6, Brunner discloses stack assembly having a front, a rear, a first side (right side) , and a second side (left side) and the dolly assembly having a handle connected to the rear of the stack assembly.
However, Brunner as modified does not disclose, wherein the lower lid is configured to open from the first side of the stack assembly towards the second side of the stack assembly.
Galante disclose, a container that has a handle (20) on the rear side and a hinge (20) is located on the second/left side to connect the lid to the body.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Brunner to have the hinge on the first side with the handle being in the rear side thus having the hinge perpendicular to the handle as taught by Galante as this would prevent the lid hitting the handle when opening the container.
As a result, Brunner as modified would have the lower lid is configured to open from the first side of the stack assembly towards the second side of the stack assembly.
Regarding claim 7, Brunner as modified discloses plurality of anchor (17, and 20) , the at least one anchor includes a side anchor connected to the lower edge on the first side of the stack assembly (Escobar explicitly disclose the use an anchor on a side opposite where the compartment is hingedly (Fig. 3) connected to the lower lid. Herein, since the hinge of claim 6 is connected on the second side, the at least one anchor is expected to include a side anchor connected to the lower edge on the first side of the stack assembly.
Regarding claim 8, Brunner as modified does not discloses the at least one anchor includes a front anchor connected to the lower edge of the front side of the stack assembly.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have an additional anchor/ a front anchor in order to allow the user to stabilize the container from different direction since such a modification would amount to a mere duplication of parts. Herein, the front anchor would be a mere duplication of the side anchor of the first side. It has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04(VI B).
Claim(s) 1, and 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brunner (US 20180161975) in view of Neeley (US 20150084291), Robinson (US 8033417; Fig. 4) and Escobar (US 20080245794).
Regarding claim 1, Brunner discloses A tool storage assembly comprising: a dolly assembly (See annotated fig. below) connected to a stack assembly (Fig. 6); the stack assembly having an upper storage container (See annotated fig. below) stacked atop a lower storage container (See annotated fig. below), , wherein the lower storage container is accessible without removal of the upper storage container from the stack assembly (fig. 6G ).
With regards to the limitation “the lower storage container having a lower lid hingedly connected to a lower compartment” Brunner appears to disclose an hinge that connects the storage container to the lid, however, in the event, Brunner does not disclose this limitation; Neeley is relevant to this issue and discloses a container (80) having a lid (81) hingedly (83) connected to a lower compartment.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Brunner to incorporate a hinge to connect the lid and the container as taught by Neeley as this would allow for the lid to be secured to the body and minimizing risk of losing the lid.
However, Brunner does not disclose, a stabilizer assembly having at least one anchor connected to a lower edge of the lower compartment, and wherein the at least one anchor extends perpendicularly away from the stack assembly .
Robinson discloses, a stabilizer assembly having at least one anchor (Fig. 4; 54) connected to a lower edge of a compartment (Fig. 4), wherein the at least one anchor extends perpendicularly away from body.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Brunner to incorporate , a stabilizer assembly having at least one anchor connected to a lower edge, wherein the at least one anchor extends perpendicularly away from the stack assembly as taught by Robinson for the purpose of providing improved stability during transportation by holding down the assembly.
However, Brunner as modified does not disclose, the anchor is on a side opposite where the lower compartment is hingedly connected to the lower lid.
Escobar discloses a container comprising an anchor (18) that is on a side opposite where the compartment is hingedly (Fig. 3) connected to the lower lid.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Brunner to have the anchor on a side opposite where the compartment is hingedly connected to the lower lid as it not only allows for improved balance by preventing tipping over but also for ease of reachability by a user.
As a result of the modification, Brunner as modified would have wherein the at least one anchor extends perpendicularly away from the stack assembly.
The limitation “the at least one anchor is configured to be stepped on to provide a counterweight to an offset created by a displacement of the upper storage container when the lower storage container is accessed.” is considered to be intended use. Examiner asserts that the recitation of intended use or purpose of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use or fulfilling said purpose, then it meets the claim. Herein, a user is capable of stepping on the structure 17 of Robinson when its incorporated into Brunner as above to provide a counterweight to an offset created by a displacement of the upper storage container when the lower storage container is accessed.
PNG
media_image1.png
340
701
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 16, Brunner as modified discloses the at least one anchor (54, Robinson) is slidably connected to the lower storage container, wherein the at least one anchor is selectively receivable within an anchor recess (50; Col. 5; lines 15-29) formed in the lower storage container.
Regarding claim 17, Brunner discloses A tool storage assembly comprising: a dolly assembly (See annotated fig. below) connected to a stack assembly; the stack assembly having an upper storage container (See annotated fig. below) stacked atop a lower storage container (See annotated fig. below), the upper storage container selectively stacked atop the lower storage container by an interlock assembly (projection 56 engages with 36.Para 203; fig. 1-6; 6g shows the lid of a bottom container is securely attached to the bottom of a adjacent upper container) wherein the lower storage container is accessible without removal of the upper storage container from the stack assembly (fig. 6G ).
With regards to the limitation “the lower storage container having a lower lid hingedly connected to a lower compartment” Brunner appears to disclose an hinge that connects the storage container to the lid, however, in the event, Brunner does not disclose this limitation; Neeley is relevant to this issue and discloses a container (80) having a lid (81) hingedly (83) connected to a lower compartment.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Brunner to incorporate a hinge to connect the lid and the container as taught by Neeley as this would allow for the lid to be secured to the body and minimizing risk of losing the lid.
However, Brunner does not explicitly disclose, a stabilizer assembly having at least one anchor connected to a lower edge of the lower storage container
Robinson discloses, a stabilizer assembly having at least one anchor (Fig. 4; 54) connected to a lower edge of a compartment (Fig. 4), wherein the at least one anchor extends perpendicularly away from body.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Brunner to incorporate , a stabilizer assembly having at least one anchor connected to a lower edge, wherein the at least one anchor extends perpendicularly away from the stack assembly as taught by Robinson for the purpose of providing improved stability during transportation by holding down the assembly.
However, Brunner as modified does not disclose, the anchor is on a side opposite where the lower compartment is hingedly connected to the lower lid.
Escobar discloses a container comprising an anchor (18) that is on a side opposite where the compartment is hingedly (Fig. 3) connected to the lower lid.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Brunner to have the anchor on a side opposite where the compartment is hingedly connected to the lower lid as it not only allows for improved balance by preventing tipping over but also for ease of reachability by a user.
The limitation “the at least one anchor is configured to be stepped on to provide a counterweight to an offset created by a displacement of the upper storage container when the lower storage container is accessed.” is considered to be intended use. Examiner asserts that the recitation of intended use or purpose of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use or fulfilling said purpose, then it meets the claim. Herein, a user is capable of stepping on the structure 54 of Robinson when its incorporated into Brunner as above to provide a counterweight to an offset created by a displacement of the upper storage container when the lower storage container is accessed.
PNG
media_image1.png
340
701
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 11, 12 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brunner- Neeley- Robinson- Escobar as applied to claim 1, and 17 above, and further in view of Kabalin (US 10588388).
Regarding claim 11, Brunner discloses, the dolly assembly having a handle (118) that is telescopically (para210) received within a handle receiver (Fig. 6a; housing of 118) but does not appear to disclose, when telescopically collapsed the handle is positioned at least flush with a lower lid of the lower storage container such that the handle does not obstruct the lower lid from opening more than a right angle in relation to a lower compartment of the lower storage container.
Kabalin discloses, a carrier (10) comprising a dolly assembly with a telescoping handle member (See annotated fig. below) wherein the handle is received within a handle receiver (See annotated fig. below) when telescopically collapsed the handle is positioned at least flush with a lower lid of the lower storage container such that the handle does not obstruct the lower lid from opening more than a right angle in relation to a lower compartment of the lower storage container(Fig. 1-3; the handle can be stationed so that it stays flushed with the lower lid) .
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Brunner to incorporate a telescoping handle and a handle receiver when telescopically collapsed the handle is positioned at least flush with a lower lid of the lower storage container such that the handle does not obstruct the lower lid from opening more than a right angle in relation to a lower compartment of the lower storage container as taught by Kabalin for the purpose of allowing the lid to open to a greater degree.
PNG
media_image3.png
466
515
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 12, Brunner discloses the handle received is with at least the lower storage container (Fig. 6); the limitation “the handle receiver is monolithically constructed with at least the lower storage container.” Is a product by process claim. The determination of patentability in a product-by-process claim is based on the product itself, even though the claim may be limited and defined by the process. That is, the product in such a claim is unpatentable if it is the same as or obvious from the product of the prior art, even if the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 697, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). A product-by-process limitation adds no patentable distinction to the claim, and is unpatentable if the claimed product is the same as a product of the prior art. (Same cite as above).
Regarding claim 18, Brunner discloses, the dolly assembly having a handle (118) that is telescopically (para210) collapsed but does not appear to disclose, telescopically collapsible below a lower lid of the lower storage container.
Kabalin discloses, a carrier (10) comprising a dolly assembly with a telescoping handle member (See annotated fig. below) wherein the handle is received within a handle receiver (See annotated fig. below) when telescopically collapsed the handle is positioned at least flush with a lower lid of the lower storage container such that the handle does not obstruct the lower lid from opening more than a right angle in relation to a lower compartment of the lower storage container(Fig. 1-3; the handle can be stationed so that it stays flushed with the lower lid) .
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Brunner to incorporate a telescoping handle and a handle receiver when telescopically collapsed the handle is positioned at least flush with a lower lid of the lower storage container such that the handle does not obstruct the lower lid from opening more than a right angle in relation to a lower compartment of the lower storage container as taught by Kabalin for the purpose of allowing the lid to open to a greater degree.
PNG
media_image3.png
466
515
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 13, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brunner- Neeley- Robinson- Escobar and Brunner- Neeley- Robinson- Escobar-Kabalin as applied to claim 1, and 18 above respectively, and further in view of Kelly (US 20110284406).
Regarding claim 13, and 19, Brunner as modified does not explicitly disclose, a tether connected to and between a lower compartment and a lower lid, wherein the tether is configured to limit a distance the lower lid can be opened in relation to the lower compartment.
Kelly discloses a container (10) comprising a tether (See annotated fig. below) connected between a lower compartment (See annotated fig. below) and a lower lid (See annotated fig. below).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Brunner to incorporate a tether connecting a lower compartment and a lower lid as taught by Brunner for the purpose of preventing the lid from falling all the way when opening the container.
The limitation “wherein the tether is configured to limit a distance the lower lid can be opened in relation to the lower compartment.” is considered to be intended use. Examiner asserts that the recitation of intended use or purpose of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use or fulfilling said purpose, then it meets the claim. Herein, the strap is capable of limiting how much the lid can be opened.
PNG
media_image4.png
361
622
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brunner- Neeley- Robinson- Escobar as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Swinny (US 3490417).
Regarding claim 14, Brunner discloses a lid fastener (projection 56 engages with 36.Para 203; fig. 1-6; 6g shows the lid of the bottom container is securely attached to the bottom of an adjacent upper container) to connect the lid to the bottom base an intermediate container (container directly on top of lower container) , however, Brunner does not explicitly disclose, a lid fastener positioned below and through a lower lid of the lower storage container and through and above an intermediate compartment of an intermediate storage container.
Swinny shows that bolt was an equivalent structure known in the art and used for connecting two bodies of containers. In order to rely on equivalence as a rationale supporting an obviousness-type rejection, the equivalency must be recognized in the prior art. See MPEP 2144.06(II). Swinny discloses the use of using bolts (Fig. 3, 20) to connect two containers instead of protrusion and recess . Therefore, because these two fastener were art-recognized equivalents before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute bolt for protrusion/recess. An express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. See MPEP 2144.06(II)
As a result of the modification, Brunner as modified would have a lid fastener positioned below and through a lower lid of the lower storage container and through and above an intermediate compartment of an intermediate storage container (Fig. 3; 20, Swinny) is shown to have bolts gone through both connecting bodies of containers and therefore, when incorporated into Brunner, the bolt would go through both the lid and a lower compartment.
The limitation “the lid fastener is configured to provide a static and fixed interconnection between the lower storage container and the intermediate storage container of the stack assembly.” is considered to be intended use. Examiner asserts that the recitation of intended use or purpose of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use or fulfilling said purpose, then it meets the claim.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to prior art of Fallacaro have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on this prior art for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicants argument with regards to the placement of the anchor i.e. the anchor being on the opposite side of the hinge is not persuasive since the prior art of Escobar explicitly discloses the location of the anchor to be on the opposite side of the hinge.
Applicants argument with regards to claim 6 is not persuasive as this newly amended claim is addressed by newly incorporated prior art of Galante.
Applicants argument with regards to claim 11 is not persuasive as this is addressed by newly incorporated prior art of Kabalin.
Applicants argument with regards to claim 16 is not persuasive as this is disclosed by newly incorporated prior art of Robinson.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to prior art of Klemmensen for claim 18 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on this prior art for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SANJIDUL ISLAM whose telephone number is (571)272-7670. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 -5:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Orlando E. Aviles can be reached at 571-270-5531. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SANJIDUL ISLAM/Examiner, Art Unit 3736
/ORLANDO E AVILES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3736